Whatever happened to the classic races?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 1,044 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

J-Gal wrote:
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. ... Does anyone else feel similarly?

Yep - right there with you (except on half-orcs - they're classic!)

For me the problem isn't quite so much the allowance of them, it's the promotion of them due to being more powerful and customizable than the core races in many ways.

There are 54 ways you can have a +2 bonus to a physical stat, a +2 bonus to a mental stat, and a -2 penalty to one stat. They don't *all* need to have races. Not to mention Aasimar covers half of that without the penalty.

*turns on ignore for the inevitable "blah blah humans dual-talented blah blah"*


I honestly don't see a lot of off-the-wall races in my games.

My now-defunct RotRL game had...
Male human sorcerer (died)
Female human paladin (retired when player moved away)
Female human rogue/wizard/arcane trickster (retired when player resigned)
Male Human barbarian
Male Human wizard
Male Human cleric
Male Dwarf ranger (died)
Male Half-elf ranger/rogue

My current Skull & Shackles game currently has...
Female human fighter
Female gnome sorcerer (me!)
Male human monk
Male human bard
Male halfling rogue

My current "Thralls of Thrune" pbp currently has...
Female human cleric of Desna (hidden priest) (me!)
Male human fighter
Male half-elf bard
Male half-elf rogue
Female tiefling barbarian/oracle

My current Carrion Crown PbP currently has...
Male human wizard (me!)
Male human paladin of Iomedae
Male human paladin of Sarenrae
Male human ranger
Male human rogue (detective)

I am starting up a new tabletop group next week with a bunch of players new to Pathfinder (and a few new to OGL 3.x). I'm planning to limit character creation to the Core Rulebook, mainly to prevent overwhelming new players with too many options.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Majuba wrote:
There are 54 ways you can have a +2 bonus to a physical stat, a +2 bonus to a mental stat, and a -2 penalty to one stat.

54? I can only come up with 36: 3 physical stats times 3 mental stats times 4 stats not previously chosen for bonuses.


Thing is, this is Pathfinder...not D&D. What was classic about D&D is just as irrelevant to Pathfinder as what was classic in mythological history is to D&D.

As to playing cheesy builds...Sorry but no. Humans are consistently better off than other races from a purely mechanical outlook.

I agree with the sentiment that a lot of your problem J Gal, is not being upfront. If you continue with Pathfinder (something at this point I think is a mistake for you) start over. Run a new game with new characters. Let people know what races are allowed and what aren't. No exceptions, no bickering, no arguing, no begging or offering bribes. Feel free to say something like "yeah, catfolk and goblins are allowed, but out of the lot of you only one person is going to be able to play one of those races, so when you send in your characters keep in mind that if you want that slot there might be some competition." Also, tell people if they play a race that society (or some societies) look down on, that society will infact look down on their character too. Want to play a drow in Forgotten Realms (for example)? Sure, be prepared to deal with a huge helping of distrust and outright hostility.

In my Rise of the Runelord game I had a player come in late (after the goblin raid) with a hobgoblin gunslinger. When we were talking back and forth about his character I told him "This is fine, I'll let you walk in with this character but you need to know something..." I described the raid, and informed him his character was aware of the situation but hadn't been there to get the Big Damn Hero treatment afterward..."So if you take your helmet off in town and people see what you are, there's every chance this character dies." He said he was willing to accept the risks, and we played.

Lastly, don't assume everyone feels the same way, or knows what races are going to catch flak. Be upfront when you start, be clear about the setting. If you still have problems after that, you and your players probably just need to stop gaming together.


J-Gal wrote:
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. These days everyone is playing some anthropomorphic animal or some elemental being or just something that is essentially a dark and edgy human. The obvious solution to this issue is just to limit the races... But alas, this only leads to complaints upon complaints. -Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?

I used to a long time ago but now I am not of that opinion. After you play the same races over and over, sometimes a change is a breath of fresh air.

I've been doing this gaming thing for about 35 years and while I still mainly play core races, I have done an odd race character here and there to explore some difference in my gaming.

Oddly enough in all that time I have never played a gnome. I don't know why but gnomes do not appeal to me in any way.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
J-Gal wrote:
Edit: And if you can show me the vanara in any core rulebook besides Pathfinder as a player race, I will redact my statement. Halflings have been around since before AD&D.

I don't think they have anything on the vanara.

See what I mean?

You don't get more classic than this.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
Edit: And if you can show me the vanara in any core rulebook besides Pathfinder as a player race, I will redact my statement. Halflings have been around since before AD&D.

I don't think they have anything on the vanara.

See what I mean?

You don't get more classic than this.

But my point is that its introduction into D&D/Pathfinder is pretty recent. The classics meaning they've been around since inception or reaaaaaaaaal close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
J-Gal wrote:
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. These days everyone is playing some anthropomorphic animal or some elemental being or just something that is essentially a dark and edgy human. The obvious solution to this issue is just to limit the races... But alas, this only leads to complaints upon complaints. -Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?

Been there, done that. Done to death. Trite, boring, cliche'd.

I'm more likely to eliminate the Tolkien bore-four (and a half) in a game world.

You're also less immune to being pigeonholed and stereotyped by the group, and the game world, if you're something less common. I will never, ever, play a halfling because I'll be subject to lame 'second breakfast' jokes and considered to be a coward even though halflings have been slender and had a racial bonus against fear for 14 years.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
J-Gal wrote:
But my point is that its introduction into D&D/Pathfinder is pretty recent. The classics meaning they've been around since inception or reaaaaaaaaal close.

I don't find that definition of classic compelling. RPGs are meant to emulate any story we want, not just the conventions of a specific game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i like cute petite humanoids. and i often approach races from an artistic thing, akin to designing a cute avatar. mostly because i like the more endearing side of anime, because i really want a cute daughter, and because i always wanted a cute younger sister. it's the Colonel Maes Hues kind of thing.

a lot of it, comes from being raised by a drastic majority of female individuals and learning to like cute things, because they are into them too.

plus, you can blame series such as Angelic Layer, Chobits, Cardcaptor Sakura and similar works for permeating the majority of my youth.

often my criteria for racial choices are

1. can i make this race cute in a Clamp, Zun, or NIS kinda way?
2. does this race have a flavor compatible with Clamp, Zun, or NIS?
3. what endearing personality traits can i give a character of this race?
4. would the dwarf of the party approve of me calling him Onii-Chan?
5. can i function at a minimum of 2 drastically different roles while still having a reasonable amount of skill points an OK defenses
6. what artistic designs would best fit this character
7. any endearing bad habits i can add?

i usually start off as something akin to a squire, an apprentice, an initiate, an acolyte, another PCs younger sister, niece or daughter, usually by adoption, or often find another way to tie myself to a major PC as the lancer to their hero. or the Tomoyo to their Sakura.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
But my point is that its introduction into D&D/Pathfinder is pretty recent. The classics meaning they've been around since inception or reaaaaaaaaal close.
I don't find that definition of classic compelling. RPGs are meant to emulate any story we want, not just the conventions of a specific game.

Hear hear!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
But my point is that its introduction into D&D/Pathfinder is pretty recent. The classics meaning they've been around since inception or reaaaaaaaaal close.
I don't find that definition of classic compelling. RPGs are meant to emulate any story we want, not just the conventions of a specific game.

Sure. But as someone who grew up with their main fantasy outlets being old AD&D modules, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. I am very much in love with the mythos the D&D game has built up over time. There is no denying that there is a setting that is distinctly D&D. I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.


Zhayne wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
But my point is that its introduction into D&D/Pathfinder is pretty recent. The classics meaning they've been around since inception or reaaaaaaaaal close.
I don't find that definition of classic compelling. RPGs are meant to emulate any story we want, not just the conventions of a specific game.
Hear hear!

Hear^3!

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
J-Gal wrote:
I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.

So don't allow them. It's a perfectly valid choice for your game. But it's also a perfectly valid choice to allow them. I've done it in both of my biggest campaigns and still had at least 1/3rd of the party be core races.

Quote:
There is no denying that there is a setting that is distinctly D&D.

You mean the one with fallen spaceships, lasers, robots, and Cthulu monsters?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Gal wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
But my point is that its introduction into D&D/Pathfinder is pretty recent. The classics meaning they've been around since inception or reaaaaaaaaal close.
I don't find that definition of classic compelling. RPGs are meant to emulate any story we want, not just the conventions of a specific game.
Sure. But as someone who grew up with their main fantasy outlets being old AD&D modules, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. I am very much in love with the mythos the D&D game has built up over time. There is no denying that there is a setting that is distinctly D&D. I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.

"Because I want them to be" is a compelling reason. Not everybody wants to play in the 'distinctly D&D setting'. I think Eberron is the most awesome setting that was ever created for D&D.

Here's the thing. You can ban those races in your game if you want. You can ban anything you like. If someone complains, they can choose not to play in your game.

Without all those other races and such, those of us who dislike traditional fantasy would be hosed. It's easier for you to ban stuff than for us to create it. The game is for everybody's enjoyment, not just one style.

The correct thing for PF to do is print everything and let the individual tables decide what they want.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.
So don't allow them. It's a perfectly valid choice for your game. But it's also a perfectly valid choice to allow them. I've done it in both of my biggest campaigns and still had at least 1/3rd of the party be core races.

I just find that, as soon as it's printed on paper, many players feel cheated about not using those options. This is not specific to Pathfinder, it's in all of the systems. I just don't like the splatbook crud that builds up on my favorite systems.

Not that they are poorly written or poorly balanced (usually), but at a certain point, they are stretching real far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
J-Gal wrote:
And another group with 2 half-orcs, a kitsune, a human (thank the lord) and a vishkanya.

I'm suddenly amused by the thought of playing a kitsune in a group like this and having the character try to convince everyone that HE is the one human in the party.


Ilja wrote:

Also, it may just be me, but i have never understood thewhole "racial superiority" thing. Why humans would just be assumed to have reasons to work together but for a group of tiefling, tengu, vishkanya and dhampir they would need some special explanation. For many or most people, species is a very minor part of your motivation or identity - at least in a society where there arent huge power structures pushing down certain species.

I mean, sure, certain races have loads of racial tentions between them, but even so there doesnt need to be some special motivation to cooperate.

Not saying fantasy species and RL race issues are the same thing, but even here where we have racial issues at least as large as most in golarion most people have friends of a different "race".

It's not so much that humans (or the more common races) would work together better, but the odds that the only tiefling, tengu, vishkanya and dhampir in the whole region would ever meet, much less work together. There are enough humans around that you'll find some group of 4 that will mesh.


That is a player issue, not a system issue.


Zhayne wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. These days everyone is playing some anthropomorphic animal or some elemental being or just something that is essentially a dark and edgy human. The obvious solution to this issue is just to limit the races... But alas, this only leads to complaints upon complaints. -Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?

Been there, done that. Done to death. Trite, boring, cliche'd.

I'm more likely to eliminate the Tolkien bore-four (and a half) in a game world.

You're also less immune to being pigeonholed and stereotyped by the group, and the game world, if you're something less common. I will never, ever, play a halfling because I'll be subject to lame 'second breakfast' jokes and considered to be a coward even though halflings have been slender and had a racial bonus against fear for 14 years.

+1 to that

1. i can't stand the second breakfast jokes, so no halfling for me

2. i can't stand playing a short bearded guy with an axe and a drinking problem, too many people make jokes about bear and sausage when it isn't even october

3. i can't stand the jokes about antlers and veagans, so i am wary of playing elves and half elves

4. i can't stand the jokes about mad tinkering, the puns about punting, or being told "your name isn't long enough" or "your hair isn't rainbow enough" so no gnomes

5. i can't stand having to butt heads with people, only for them to pump their fists in the air and yell "Blood and Thunder!" so i avoid Orcs and half orcs

6. i can't stand being mistaken for random NPCs and being treated like i don't exist, so i avoid humans.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. These days everyone is playing some anthropomorphic animal or some elemental being or just something that is essentially a dark and edgy human. The obvious solution to this issue is just to limit the races... But alas, this only leads to complaints upon complaints. -Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?

Been there, done that. Done to death. Trite, boring, cliche'd.

I'm more likely to eliminate the Tolkien bore-four (and a half) in a game world.

You're also less immune to being pigeonholed and stereotyped by the group, and the game world, if you're something less common. I will never, ever, play a halfling because I'll be subject to lame 'second breakfast' jokes and considered to be a coward even though halflings have been slender and had a racial bonus against fear for 14 years.

+1 to that

1. i can't stand the second breakfast jokes, so no halfling for me

2. i can't stand playing a short bearded guy with an axe and a drinking problem, too many people make jokes about bear and sausage when it isn't even october

3. i can't stand the jokes about antlers and veagans, so i am wary of playing elves and half elves

4. i can't stand the jokes about mad tinkering, the puns about punting, or being told "your name isn't long enough" or "your hair isn't rainbow enough" so no gnomes

5. i can't stand having to butt heads with people, only for them to pump their fists in the air and yell "Blood and Thunder!" so i avoid Orcs and half orcs

6. i can't stand being mistaken for random NPCs and being treated like i don't exist, so i avoid humans.

But the anime lolicon jokes are just fine?

Liberty's Edge

J-Gal wrote:
Sure. But as someone who grew up with their main fantasy outlets being old AD&D modules, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. I am very much in love with the mythos the D&D game has built up over time. There is no denying that there is a setting that is distinctly D&D. I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.

What do your players want? That is a compelling reason. If they all want to play the exotic in a world of mundanes and deal with the social challenges make your campaign that way.

If, instead, they imagine a world where the exotic is the norm than play that way. Make an empire of a hundred races that has fought and spread out, fighting against orcs and hobgoblins and other races that think their race is the only true race.

Heck, make a world of a thousand islands. Each player gets one to build with his or her race. You as the GM bring the PCs together on a ship. And you the GM build the rest of the islands to explore.

What I'm getting at is, the compelling reason is for all the players (GM included) to have fun. The One Ring works great for Tolkien but I wouldn't want to play it all the time. Let some craziness into the PF and D&D worlds. Basic D&D didn't shy away from exotic races.


i'm with Zhayne, again. the issue with the races, is neither an issue with the system nor the races, it's an issue with the players. doesn't mean the races are a bad thing. a Planetouched, a Dhampir, Changeling, Samsaran, Half-Nymph or Tera style Elin, i would consider no Wierder than a Elf, a Dwarf, a Half-Orc, a Gnome, Half Elf or Halfling.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i'm with Zhayne, again. the issue with the races, is neither an issue with the system nor the races, it's an issue with the players. doesn't mean the races are a bad thing. a Planetouched, a Dhampir, Changeling, Samsaran, Half-Nymph or Tera style Elin, i would consider no Wierder than a Elf, a Dwarf, a Half-Orc, a Gnome, Half Elf or Halfling.

It also bears noting that how common or uncommon a race is, is COMPLETELY setting-dependent. Who says that aasimar is the only one in the nation? The setting could be half aasimar with only a handful of humans.

There are no assumptions. There are no baselines. Your gameworld is what you want it to be.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Gal wrote:
I just find that, as soon as it's printed on paper, many players feel cheated about not using those options.

That sounds like a personal problem for them, not you.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Gal wrote:
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. These days everyone is playing some anthropomorphic animal or some elemental being or just something that is essentially a dark and edgy human. The obvious solution to this issue is just to limit the races... But alas, this only leads to complaints upon complaints. -Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?

I approve of you good sir, you are welcome in my game anytime


J-Gal wrote:


Simply stating the age of a mythical being does not warrant its inclusion as a player race in the game. They are monkey people, what do you want me to say?

Your title mentioned "classic races", not "races I like". The vanara is by far a more classic race/species than santas little helpers in fantasy stories. One has been famous for 60 years (or more like 15 years for the pathfinder version of the halflings or 30 years for pathfinder elves), the other has been around for 2500 years and is part of one of the greatest eastern classics.

Quote:
Edit: And if you can show me the vanara in any core rulebook besides Pathfinder as a player race, I will redact my statement. Halflings have been around since before AD&D.

Arrows of Indra has it as a core race. Against the Dark Yogi has it as an NPC race, though the game is fairly human-centered.

But just because it isn't common in your specific hood doesn't make it un-classic.

Mini-me and garden decorations are at least as weird and silly as the vanara.


Charlie D. wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
Sure. But as someone who grew up with their main fantasy outlets being old AD&D modules, Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. I am very much in love with the mythos the D&D game has built up over time. There is no denying that there is a setting that is distinctly D&D. I just don't believe that the odd races of that system should be player characters unless there is a compelling reason for it.

What do your players want? That is a compelling reason. If they all want to play the exotic in a world of mundanes and deal with the social challenges make your campaign that way.

If, instead, they imagine a world where the exotic is the norm than play that way. Make an empire of a hundred races that has fought and spread out, fighting against orcs and hobgoblins and other races that think their race is the only true race.

Heck, make a world of a thousand islands. Each player gets one to build with his or her race. You as the GM bring the PCs together on a ship. And you the GM build the rest of the islands to explore.

What I'm getting at is, the compelling reason is for all the players (GM included) to have fun. The One Ring works great for Tolkien but I wouldn't want to play it all the time. Let some craziness into the PF and D&D worlds. Basic D&D didn't shy away from exotic races.

Don't get me wrong, all of the races in the books exist in my games, but I draw the line when it comes to playing as them. As an extreme example, everyone playing a dragon in a one off could be a lot of fun. But if a player came to you everytime you run a campaign wanting to play a dragon, that would become quickly tiresome.

And it's true, the problem is mostly with the players, but I find that I take whatever players I can get. Finding 5 of those with the same philosophy as me is rare if not impossible.


thejeff wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. These days everyone is playing some anthropomorphic animal or some elemental being or just something that is essentially a dark and edgy human. The obvious solution to this issue is just to limit the races... But alas, this only leads to complaints upon complaints. -Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?

Been there, done that. Done to death. Trite, boring, cliche'd.

I'm more likely to eliminate the Tolkien bore-four (and a half) in a game world.

You're also less immune to being pigeonholed and stereotyped by the group, and the game world, if you're something less common. I will never, ever, play a halfling because I'll be subject to lame 'second breakfast' jokes and considered to be a coward even though halflings have been slender and had a racial bonus against fear for 14 years.

+1 to that

1. i can't stand the second breakfast jokes, so no halfling for me

2. i can't stand playing a short bearded guy with an axe and a drinking problem, too many people make jokes about bear and sausage when it isn't even october

3. i can't stand the jokes about antlers and veagans, so i am wary of playing elves and half elves

4. i can't stand the jokes about mad tinkering, the puns about punting, or being told "your name isn't long enough" or "your hair isn't rainbow enough" so no gnomes

5. i can't stand having to butt heads with people, only for them to pump their fists in the air and yell "Blood and Thunder!" so i avoid Orcs and half orcs

6. i can't stand being mistaken for random NPCs and being treated like i don't exist, so i avoid humans.

But the anime lolicon jokes are just fine?

i like cute anime girls, i'm fine with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
J-Gal wrote:
But if a player came to you everytime you run a campaign wanting to play a dragon, that would become quickly tiresome.

To you. I wouldn't have a problem with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


i like cute anime girls, i'm fine with it.

Will you join my team, "Mahou Shojo No Sarenrae" ? They're a group of magical girls (Cleric, Paladin, Inquisitor, Dawnflower Dervish & Oracle/Dawnflowe Dissident) who all fight evil in the name of Sarenrae...


Zhayne wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
But if a player came to you everytime you run a campaign wanting to play a dragon, that would become quickly tiresome.
Zhayne wrote:
To you. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But would you allow them to do so? As much as I want my players to have a good time, I don't DM by committee. If they don't like it, they can read the books and DM a game and I'll play by their rules.

But as long as I am the only one who possesses the knowledge of behind the screen, it's my way or the highway mwahahaha

Shadow Lodge

williamoak wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


i like cute anime girls, i'm fine with it.

Will you join my team, "Mahou Shojo No Sarenrae" ? They're a group of magical girls (Cleric, Paladin, Inquisitor, Dawnflower Dervish & Oracle/Dawnflowe Dissident) who all fight evil in the name of Sarenrae...

You have my bow.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

My main disconnect with the premise of this thread is that I don't see why it's so hard, if you want to limit your game in such a way, to just say, "Nothing except the core races in my game."

I had the same disconnect when people used to talk about the proliferation of options in D&D 3.5. Is anybody really going to get angry and/or quit a game because they're not allowed to play their half-fiend warforged ninja/scout?

Well, I guess there's certainly somebody like that out there, but I haven't met them in any of my gaming groups yet.

And if you can set things as you like them in your campaign, does it really matter what other people are doing in their games? I might be missing something, but the whole argument strikes me as similar to complaining about all the different ice cream flavors out there because you prefer vanilla or chocolate only.


I wouldn't have a problem with it, therefore, I would allow them to do so.


TOZ wrote:
williamoak wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


i like cute anime girls, i'm fine with it.

Will you join my team, "Mahou Shojo No Sarenrae" ? They're a group of magical girls (Cleric, Paladin, Inquisitor, Dawnflower Dervish & Oracle/Dawnflowe Dissident) who all fight evil in the name of Sarenrae...
You have my bow.

I would run the game myself, if not for 2 reasons:

1) I would feel like I'm pigeon-holing players too much
2) I really want to play this (I would be a tsundere half-orc inquisitor)


Zhayne wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it, therefore, I would allow them to do so.

But that's going to influence everybody else in the game. Who is going to play a human when Bob is a dragon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
J-Gal wrote:
But if a player came to you everytime you run a campaign wanting to play a dragon, that would become quickly tiresome.
To you. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

everything has its place.

Played in a underdark campaign where we had 10+players, 5 played Drow of a same house, the other 5 played slaves and servants of that house.
Was a lot of fun, and we agreed to a theme for that campaign, and worked with the DM to make it happen, again its communication.

Played in another campaign where we all played commoner humans for the first session or so, and were given classes based on our actions in those sessions, was very fun, but the GM made most of the calls on the classes, so again commo is key.

And another Campaign where we played Council of Wyrms and were all hatchling dragons..eventually we invaded a drow city and killed our PCs from the above mentioned underdark campaign...now that was fun.

But the underlining key is talk with your players and see what they want to do, and if the two are compatible, its not the races or numbers of them, its the implementation of them..

Kinda like spices, there are hundreds of them, but not all belong in each recipe, find the ones that season best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
I might be missing something, but the whole argument strikes me as similar to complaining about all the different ice cream flavors out there because you prefer vanilla or chocolate only.

No, that's exactly what it is. It's declaring other people's preferences to be badwrongfun, 'how dare you like things I don't' and so forth.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
J-Gal wrote:
But that's going to influence everybody else in the game. Who is going to play a human when Bob is a dragon?

That depends on if Bob is okay with my paladin being his rider.


williamoak wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


i like cute anime girls, i'm fine with it.

Will you join my team, "Mahou Shojo No Sarenrae" ? They're a group of magical girls (Cleric, Paladin, Inquisitor, Dawnflower Dervish & Oracle/Dawnflowe Dissident) who all fight evil in the name of Sarenrae...

give me more of a description, and i might join it.

i might join as Sweet Nicolette, Holy Dhampir Dawnflower Dervish whom found redemption in the dawn


J-Gal wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it, therefore, I would allow them to do so.
But that's going to influence everybody else in the game. Who is going to play a human when Bob is a dragon?

I don't care who does. I don't care if anybody does. I might not even make humans an available PC race. There may not even be any humans in the setting.

101 to 150 of 1,044 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Whatever happened to the classic races? All Messageboards